One of the limitations of Correspondent Inference Theory and Covariation Theory is
that they assume people are logical in their judgements about themselves and others.
However, this is not always so – and people do make errors of judgement as a result
of biases.
Some of the more significant biases are:-
Fundamental Attribution Error
Also known as Correspondence Bias (because it supprts the concept of Correspondent
Inference Theory) or Overattribution Effect, this is the tendency for people to over-emphasize
dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviours observed in others
while under-emphasizing situational explanations. In other words, people have an
unjustified tendency to assume that a person's actions depend on what ‘kind’ of person
that person is rather than on the social and environmental forces influencing the
person.
The term was coined by Lee Ross (1977) after a now-classic experiment by Edward E
Jones & Victor Harris (1967). Participants read pro- and anti-Fidel Castro essays.
They were asked to rate the pro-Castro attitudes of the writers. When the participants
believed that the writers freely chose the positions they took (for or against Castro),
they naturally rated the people who spoke in favour of Castro as having a more positive
attitude toward Castro. However, when the participants were told that the writer's
positions were determined by a coin toss, they still rated writers who spoke in favor
of Castro as having, on average, a more positive attitude towards Castro than those
who spoke against him. In other words, the subjects were unable to see the influence
of the situational constraints placed upon the writers; they could not refrain from
attributing sincere belief to the writers.
A notable study on the less pleasant effects of the Fundamental Attribution Error
was conducted by Dara Musher-Eizenman, Shayla Holub, Amy Barnhart Miller, Sara Goldstein
& Laura Edwards-Leeper (2004). 42 young children of average age 5 years were asked
to describe other children of different body type and explain how body types were
different. The children tended to make dispositional attributions for being overweight,
with the most negative descriptions of overweight children coming from those who
had made dispositional attributions.
Actor-Observer Effect
Coming from the work of Edward E Jones & Robert Nisbett (1972), people are said to
display an Actor-Observer Effect when actors tend to attribute their own socially
undesirable behaviour to their circumstances (ie: situational causes) but tend to
attribute socially undesirable behaviours of those we observe to their dispositions
(ie: person causes). Often such actors will attribute their own desirable behaviours
to their dispositions.
Simply put, the Actor-Observer Effect can be expressed as: "If others do it, it's
their fault; if I do it, it's not my fault, it's because of the situation I'm in."
Alan E Stewart (2005) found the influence of the Actor-Observer Effect in a study
of 321 car crash survivors. They overwhelmingly attributed their accidents to the
behaviour of other drivers (external) while their own driving was considered okay
(internal).
However, in a review of the literature since Jones & Nisbett, Bertram F Malle (2006)
noted there has been lack of support for this hypothesis. Analysis of the literature
fails to support the asymmetry between actors and observers set forth by Jones &
Nisbett. Instead it is hypothesized that we use everyday experiential explanations
that are centered around an unintentional or intentional causal explanation and intentional
and aware or intentional and unaware (Malle, 2007).
Self-Serving Bias
A Self-Serving Bias occurs when people attribute their successes to internal or personal
factors but attribute their failures to situational factors beyond their control.
According to Dale Miller & Michael Ross 1975, the Self-Serving Bias can be seen in
the common human tendency to take credit for success but to deny responsibility for
failure. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous
information in a way that is beneficial to their interests. Self-serving bias may
be associated with the better-than-average effect, in which the individual is biased
to believe that he or she typically performs better than the average person in areas
important to their self esteem. For example, studies by J Kruger (1999) and Neal
Roese & James Olson (2007) show that a majority of drivers think they drive better
than the average driver.
The term Self-Serving Bias is most often used to describe a pattern of biased causal
inference, in which praise or blame depend on whether success or failure was achieved.
For example, a student who gets a good grade on an exam might say, "I got an A because
I am intelligent and I studied hard!" whereas a student who does poorly on an exam
might say, "The teacher gave me an F because he does not like me!" When someone strategically
strives to facilitate external causes for their poor performance (so that they will
subsequently have a means to avoid blaming themselves for failure), it may be labeled
self-handicapping.
Another example of Self-Serving Bias can be found in the workplace. Victims of serious
occupational accidents tend to attribute their accidents to external factors, whereas
their coworkers and management tend to attribute the accidents to the victims' own
action.
False Consensus Effect
The False Consensus Effect, first put forward by Lee Ross, D Greene & P House (1977).
is the tendency for people to project their way of thinking onto other people. In
other words, they assume that everyone else thinks the same way they do. This supposed
correlation is unsubstantiated by statistical data, leading to the perception of
a consensus that does not exist. This logical fallacy involves a group or individual
assuming that their own opinions, beliefs and predilections are more prevalent amongst
the general public than they really are.
This bias is commonly present in a group setting where one thinks the collective
opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members
of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend
to believe that everybody thinks the same way.
As an extension, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, James
M Fields & Howard Schuman (1977) found that people often assume that the others who
do not agree with them are defective in some way.
